Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 07/30/2012 06:37 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>> BUt surely IF this is a good idea and worth having, which Im assuming
>>> it is, then the longer we wait, the more problems there will be with
>>> deployed systems out there which don't support it. Kicking the can
>>> down the road is not a good way to handle problems of legacy inertia.
>>>
>>
>> Your argument would apply to literals-as-subjects as well; it's
>> largely a syntax restriction. If that's going to happen, it isn't in
>> this WG (by charter), so why not make the changes in one step, not in
>> multiple steps?
>
> If literals-as-subject were primarily a matter of syntax, or were seen
> as inevitable, I don't think they'd have been ruled out by the
> charter. I understand the reasons were mostly about data structures
> and implementation techniques, but I wasn't paying close attention to
> the technical content, so perhaps I misunderstood.
>
> It might be interesting to ask again.
Agree, another survey?